MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416295214 · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2025.4478

Stroke Mechanism and Severity After Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion

2025· article· en· W4416295214 on OpenAlexaff
Aristeidis H. Katsanos, Richard Whitlock, Emilie P. Belley‐Côté, Katheryn Brady, Angela Wang, Abhilekh Srivastava, Grégory Jacquin, Viktor Weiss, Ondřej Volný, Martin Šrámek, João Pedro Marto, Paweł Wrona, Anthoula Tsolaki, Linxin Li, Antonia Nucera, Robert Mikulík, Kanjana Perera, Luciana Catanese, Ashkan Shoamanesh, Mukul Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Neurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppendageMechanism (biology)Stroke (engine)Left atrial appendage occlusionOcclusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: In the Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study III (LAAOS III), surgical occlusion of the LAA during cardiac surgery for patients with known history of atrial fibrillation (AF) substantially reduced the risk of stroke. Objective: To assess the impact of LAAO on ischemic stroke subtype and outcome. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a post hoc exploratory analysis of the LAAOS III randomized clinical trial. Data were adjudicated from June 28, 2023, to November 29, 2023, and the main analyses took place from December 18, 2023, to April 29, 2024. The LAAOS III trial recruited participants from 105 centers in 27 countries between July 2012 and October 2018. Patients with AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2 undergoing cardiac surgery for other indications were included in the analysis. Interventions: Surgical LAAO plus standard care vs standard care alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: For strokes occurring during the trial, the functional outcome as measured by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at day 7 or discharge, mortality, the presence of cortical infarcts, and the occurrence of infarcts of presumed cardioembolic origin were examined. Results: Of 4811 participants in the LAAOS III trial followed up for 3.8 years, 273 had a first ischemic stroke. The mean (SD) age of participants at the time of the first ischemic stroke was 75 (7) years, 104 were female (38%), and 169 were male (62%). Participants allocated to receive LAAO had reduced (common odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-0.99) mRS scores at 7 days or discharge and a lower risk for mortality at 30 days (16.5% vs 20.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.97) after a stroke event. Participants allocated to LAAO had fewer cortical infarcts on neuroimaging (46.2% vs 61.3%; difference in proportions: -15.2%; 95% CI, -26.7% to -3.7%), as well as a lower proportion of ischemic strokes of presumed cardioembolic etiology when compared with ischemic strokes in the no-LAAO group (42.9% vs 57.9%; difference in proportions: -15.1%; 95% CI, -26.5% to -3.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that LAAO in patients with AF undergoing cardiac surgery was associated with a decreased risk of presumed cardioembolic stroke, reduced disability, and mortality from stroke. These findings underscore the benefit of LAAO for patients with AF undergoing cardiac surgery. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01561651.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA NeurologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207